On Mon, Feb 26, 2007, Chris Rosset wrote: > * So looks like 2.84 requests per second. That isn't a high load at all. There's going to be some other issue then. Are you graphing the request rate and traffic through the server? What about graphing stuff like server CPU/memory usage, disk IO, swapping/paging, etc? > * Ok, but that would require us to create a new AUFS filesystem no? > I read diskd is almost as good and you can still use it on a UFS filesystem. > At least if you compile it into squid. Your thoughts? No, you just need to recompile Squid. AUFS, UFS and DISKD all use the same on-disk format. > * yeah it's mostly spam sites we got the list from somewhere. > Someone reccomended squidgard maybe ill try that. It'd be nice if someone sat down and tried to figure out why our CPU use is so high with large ACLs. > * Well i could probably try it on our dev box, I am not positive we can upgrade to 2.6 though > One of our Admins told me he found some issues with it and preffered to stay on 2.5 for now. Issues like what? We can't fix things if noone tells us what issues they're having with Squid-2.6. Squid-2.6 has so many fixes in it compared to Squid-2.5 people should've moved to it in droves and told us what broke so some fixes could've been posted! :) Migrating to Squid-2.6 now is a good idea - there's work in the pipeline which might eventuate into another -2 release with some pretty major improvements and the jump from 2.5 will be quite big. I'd rather be told what stuff is broken in 2.6 so it can be fixed and included in the next release than to wait for the next release and find stuff is still broken (and people not telling us what it is..) Adrian
